Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2

On 2020/04/21 15:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
>> the backward-compatibility for that.
>>
>> Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
>> tries to remove non-fast promotion, it's intentional to prevent them
>> from doing that. But you think that we should not drop that because
>> there are still some users for that?
> 
> It would be good to ask around to folks maintaining HA solutions about
> that change at least, as there could be a point in still letting
> promotion to happen in this case, but switch silently to the fast
> path.

*If* there are some HA solutions doing that, IMO that they should be changed
so that the documented official way to trigger promotion (i.e., pg_ctl promote,
pg_promote or trigger_file) is used instead.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION